Effects of shank mass manipulation on sprinting techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of shank mass manipulation on the sprinting technique in maximal-speed sprinting. Sixteen well-trained male athletes sprinted with and without an additional 15% of shank mass attached to the shank centre of mass. Kinematic data were collected using a 12-camera motion analysis system and analysed using linear regression analyses with categorical variables and paired t-tests. The sprinting speed (p < 0.01), knee flexion angle at landing (p = 0.028), and maximum hip flexion angular velocity (p = 0.029) decreased; contact time (p < 0.01) increased; and step length, step frequency, and other analysed technique measures of maximal-speed sprinting were unchanged (p ≥ 0.12) with shank mass manipulation, compare with no manipulation. The relationships of sprinting speed with critical linear and angular kinematics at landing, take-off and swing in maximal-speed sprinting were not affected by the shank mass manipulation. These results suggest that 15% shank mass manipulation does not change the sprinting technique of well-trained male athletes in maximal-speed sprinting. This supports the use of shank mass manipulation as a training method for well-trained sprinters; however, a change in correlations between sprinting speed and technique measures should be considered during such training.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".